The obvious objection to a setup in which the guest is responsible for his own well-being is the scenario where the guest has an incentive to end his confinement by any means necessary. Say he’s in possession of secret information, or is a critical pawn in some potential exchange, and he wants to interfere with your plans by removing his value to you. Seems to me the circumstances of the OP call for lodgings which are kept livable for the guest with no action or participation on his part (barring some extreme and unlikely exception).